Archive for April 2011
On April 27th 2006 I became a board member of a legally incorporated charitable trust Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand. We had applied to IRD and received Donee status and had confirmed that they had no record of any other organisation or group of people using that name.
On May 14th 2006 we made an application for the trade mark AWINZ which eventually was registered to us un opposed.
We had set up a website AWINZ.co.nz which stated that we were not the approved organisation and drew attention to the differences between the two.
She said that she was a lawyer and that we should give up our web site and change our name. She would not say who she was representing, the phone call was nothing but bullying in my opinion, she said it was urgent that we complied with her demands , I asked if we could meet to discuss the matter.
In emails from Vivienne Parre sent immediately after wards she made threats against my Private investigators licence .
As indicated by the emails she had also sought to have us removed from the register , by her own words she had initiated this action . Nick Wright and Neil Wells were also to put Pressure on or web host who told them to get a high court injunction .
I located her address and in view of her urgency called in to see her at her home , she was not in and responded by having her husband Nick Wright serve a trespass notice.
On 26 June we the board of AWINZ , I personally and my company Verisure received a Brookfield’s letter signed By David Neutze .
Despite the claims of the letter that a trust deed accompanied it no such document was present , The deed was however forwarded to us By Nick Wright several days later.Having been created By Mr Wells late on 27 June ( click on the documents properties to view these details ) .
We asked a number of times if the trustees from both sides coud meet there by resolution could be achieved but we were not taken up on our offer instead on 18 July a statement of claim was filed By David Neutze of Brookfields.
We were to find out later that Mr Wells was at that time in possession of a document, only days old , which related to Vivienne’s statement in her email 4 JUNE “Due to the urgency of the situation I am helping in the meantime in a voluntary capacity and have “gotten the ball rolling” with the Ministry to see your organisation removed from the register as quickly as possible.”
This reply gave an avenue for legal redress – we have to wonder why was this ignored and why was there no affidavit filed with the statement of claim. was it because intimidation was better than an application which relied on proof?
I will write more about these documents later but it should be noted that the trustees in the alleged deed and the plaintiffs are not one and the same. In 5 years we have never been shown a connection other than by inference.
I had cause to speak to a previous colleague of mine Inspector Dave SIMPSON of the New Zealand Police , he told me that Neil Wells had engaged a woman lawyer who was working for him pro bono.
After receiving this information I checked with the law society and found that Vivienne Parre /Wright did not have a practicing certificate. I asked her about it and she got one the next day 15 August 2006 She never had any further involvement that I was aware of with the matter but Nick Wright took over.. more on him later.
Until now I was uncertain as to Vivienne Parres involvement but it has been clarified by her former Husband who has stated in official documents “After some months, as Mr Wells … together with the other trustees of AWINZ at the time, sought legal counsel. Initial contact was made by Mr Wells to Ms Vivienne Parre (who was at that time married to Mr Wright). Ms Parre was employed at Brookfields at the time, and the instruction in turn came to Brookfields.”
My enquiries at the time had ascertained that Vivienne Parre was not working at Brookfields , at least she was not shown on the staff list and the receptionist was of the opinion that she did not work there.
Vivienne Wrights marriage with Nick Wright came to an end and she disappeared off the scene she had changed her name to Vivienne HOLM and was working first with Bell Gully and then as an , associate, Chen Palmer .
Vivienne Holm is now employed by the ministry for the environment.
Her former Husband Nick Wright is a resource management lawyer no doubt a very useful connection for both.
I find it somewhat Ironic that on a Bell Gully document it said of Vivienne Holm “Vivienne’s key practice areas include resource management and planning, with particular expertise on local government matters”
Does that expertise mean covering up for private enterprise such as AWINZ which leaches on to public funds for private pecuniary gain ? And why if here was a legitimate claim could there not be any evidence of it ?
Tomorrow I will write about Mr Neutze and question what obligations do lawyers have to ensure that documents that they sign and documents they file are factual?
I will then cover the involvement of former Mayor WYN Hoadley
I have just made complaints against a number of lawyers and had wanted to make a complaint against Brookfield’s lawyers with the law society but found that because they were an unincorporated law firm I had no redress against them. I have written to Brookfields , ( their partners and their CEO) in the past and been ignored .
Just last night I found that Brookfield’s had blocked my email address , guess that is how you deal with issues first you bully then you throw up a brick wall. That is where blogs come in .
I am a whistle blower I didn’t mean to be , I simply asked some simple questions of the duly elected council members of Waitakere city council and of MAF with regards to an organisation which had law enforcement ability under the animal welfare act. This “ organisation ‘ transpired to be just one man a man who had written the legislation and had advised on it at select committee level. He was effectively running his private SPCA as a parasite off public resources using staff vehicles and resources paid for by the ratepayers and collecting the profits and banking it into an account only he had access to and held in the name of his alias.. animal welfare institute of new Zealand.
In my opinion it would make a perfect fraud it is so clever that even the best Grisham novel could not have dreamt up this plot. The secret of the success was a false application which would result in enforcing the animal welfare law and by virtue of section 171 see the proceeds of prosecution returned to the approved organisation.
This was not coincidental it had been plotted way back at least in 1994 and put into a business plan in 1996. The in 1997 the writer of the business plan had the luxury of writhing the legislation for his business plan and was employed by the select committee to see it through the transitional stage and pass into law.
The false application for approved status was false because no trust exited and no deed had been signed. The assurances in paragraph 10.4 were that the trust would be registered and become a legal entity in its own right. It was later to transpire that many other things in this application were total bull shit too.
MAF and the minister sought to clarify the existence of AWINZ and as these communications show , proof was avoided.( I eventually received the full documents if any one wants them I can direct you to them )
Early of 2001 the minster approved the application for AWINZ Inc to become a law enforcement authority under the act which the person making the application for AWINZ had written.
Strangely enough in searching the MAF files and in official information act requests, there was never any correspondence from anyone else who said that Mr Wells,( the person acting on behalf of the applicant ) could act on their behalf or on behalf of any other group everything ws done by him in the name of the fictitious AWINZ.
In 2006 I was approached by some people in my capacity as a private Investigator, they had concerns about the existence or rather lack of existence of AWINZ. There were two memoranda of understanding one with MAF and one with the previous manager dog and stock control Waitakere city . Mr Wells who had signed on behalf of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand with Waitakere was to take the place of Mr Didovich who had signed apparently without the authority of the city. And so in this agreement with council Mr Wells had obligations to both sides of the agreement something the council Lawyer Denis Sheard had no issue with.
There was not a register on which AWINZ showed and so to prove conclusively that we had not overlooked the existence we incorporated a trust by the identical name and were successful.
Our trust was incorporated on 27 April 2006 in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. The incorporated number is 1809454. It is searchable on the register maintained by the MED.
Proving that AWINZ categorically did not exist and not being able to locate any group of identifiable persons who called themselves AWINZ at that time, we put up our web page stating that we were the only legal entity by that name and having achieved Donee status and having ascertained that no one else using that name had IRD donee status we advertised that too.
Now the dates are very important remember we were fully incorporated, That is our AWINZ was a legal entity in its own right on 27 APRIL 2006 by virtue of this statute ( see section 13 ) .
You have to wonder how a group which informally formed on 10 May 2006 without any documentation, can have a claim to having used that name prior to 27 April 2006 … Never fear Brookfields is here they are so efficient that they can do anything and on this occasion they used Vivienne Parre a partners wife ( Nick Wright) who did not hold a practicing certificate.. to commence the intimidation …………… to be continued….
In 2006 I questioned the existence of one of only two private law enforcement authorities in New Zealand – The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand.(AWINZ )
As a result of attempting to seek accountability for a law enforcement organisation which did not have any independent legal existence of its own I was sued through Brookfield’s Lawyers.
For 5 years I have been subjected to the most extraordinary litigation which truly shows how innovative Brookfield’s can be.
Brookfield’s have been able to be successful in court by
- using a Un registered lawyer
- Plaintiffs with no standing (The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue)
- Making a fabricated claim,
- using nonexistent evidence
- avoiding discovery
- Not filing affidavits
- Used innovative means to manipulate the court proceedings
- To incur huge costs to the innocent parties
- Demanded payment and refused offers
- Had my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out
- cleverly skipping the formal proof hearing( which saved the embarrassment of not being able to come up with the evidence in the court. )
- Had a decision made against me for continuing to defame when no determination for defamation had ever been made
- Prevented me from placing evidence before the court that would show that their client committed perjury
- Blocked every means that I had open to me to seek redress through the court.
As can be seen by the list this is going to take some time to expand on .
What is so spectacular about this case is that it proves that any formal structure we have in New Zealand is entirely pointless as Brookfield’s will strive to win no matter what.
Brookfield’s have been so creative that I thought I should let the world know how they operate their values and ethical standing surely sets a new standards for Lawyers .
I did write to Brook fields and asked if we could meet to discuss this But they are so right that they have nothing to fear, see Brookfield’s reply
Tomorrow I will add to the post it will be good unbelievable reading. I can promise you that.
I find it somewhat surprising that a director of a company does not know what the company is worth.
Both Anthony John MCCULLAGH and Stephen Mark LAWRENCE are the receivers for Tony Tay film Limited . they are also directors of Auckland film studio in which Tony Tay film is the majority share holder.
Yet as Directors of the Auckland film studio ( in which the Auckland rate payers have a significant stake ) they were unaware of the value of the company and incorrectly represented the value in the receivers first report
This morning I received a phone call from mr Lawrence who advised me that a new report would be published and sent me a copy of the corrected values. he also told me that I was on a witch hunt.
the amended report will be filed in 20 days time after the ir request to remove the first report and substitute it with a second is advertised in the public notices.
So here is a preview of the amended figures
the question has to be How can directors and receivers get it so wrong what checking do they do on the reported figures.. none by all accounts.
These guys have been directors of Auckland film since 28 Feb 2011 , Their interest is not in the long-term survival of Auckland film studios their interest is to secure as many assets as possible for the person appointing them who in this case is the person charged with running the studios.
If he has sent the corporate undertakers in what interest has he got in the long-term health and well-being of Auckland film.. to me all it looks a bit counter productive.
If I had a company in which the job of 2/3 of the directors was to plunder it for assets I would be concerned.
I would be further concerned if the person I was employing as on site manager of the operation was the person who had engaged these directors and they are effectively working for him and then make an error of a mere $6 mil
I’m not in this for a witch hunt .. but since no one in council is asking the questions that I have you wonder about who actually cares about our assets.
Guess we can all pay a few more $ in rates. as long as the rich get richer the plebs can keep paying.
Yesterday I sent the following to the receivers of Tony Tay film
Good morning Lisa
I refer to the invitation to bring matters to the receivers attention (11 on the receivers first report )
I wish to advise you of the information I have uncovered and is posted on my blog Auckland film studios public losses private gains ?
In particular the massive discrepancies with regards the value that the receivers place on the Auckland film studios and the value which the council place on it through public documents.
The error in the estimated statement of realisation attached to our first report was bought to our attention just yesterday. We are currently awaiting advice as to whether we can file a second report with the appropriate changes or if we must file an amended first report which takes 20 working days to effect.
I provided further infomation as follows
it is really strange that Kieran FITZSIMMONS is the lender to the company he is a director and shareholder of . he also has shared business shareholdings through rehoboth in Jireh entertainment and SUCCESSFUL TRADING (NZ) LIMITED
Kieran FITZSIMMONS is also the on site manager of Auckland film studios . It appears odd to outsiders that a shareholder should give a loan to the company he is a director of and then by having given the company the loan place it in receivership. That surely must implicate on his directors duties of solvency of the company and to me it appears like a circular equation.
I do hope someone looks at why the loan was given by a director through the minority shareholder , it appears to me that if the director had wished to introduce more funds into the company he was both a shareholder and director of then he could have done this by increasing his shareholding.
As Tony Tay Film Limited doesn’t have any other assets you have to wonder if the loan was given to keep the company solvent when it was not.
As some one who deals with companies all the time this loan to your own company and then liquidating it seems odd.
Kieran Fitzsimons is also the onsite manager of Auckland film Studios . the day to day operation and success of the studios is directly in his hands. How can he be acting in a responsible manner for Auckland film studio when he is seeking to wind up the very company he is a director of.
You have to wonder why money was introduced into a company when it was not reflected in a change in the shareholding. Or was to off set money transferred out of the company at the same time if so where did it go to
I am also advising the IRD of my concerns.
Tony Tay film Limited is share holder of Auckland film studios
Until going into receivership Fitzsimmons and Tay were directors of Auckland film Studios
Fitzsimmons is still the general manager of the studios charged with the day to day operations
Tony Tay film has two share holders and two directors
It took over the previous share holding in Auckland film from the Tony Tay trust.
Tony Tay film is owned by Tony Tay trust 85% and REHOBOTH ENTERTAINMENT (NZ 15%
Tony Tay trust and REHOBOTH ENTERTAINMENT each have 50 % share holdings in
SUCCESSFUL TRADING (NZ) LIMITED and JIREH ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED
Fitzsimmons was the general manager of Tony Tay Group
The loan was registered to Auckland film studios by Rehoboth whose director and shareholder is also a director of Auckland film studio . By giving that loan he know that Auckland film studio was insolvent and as a director should not have received a loan the company could not afford especially since tony Tay trust already had other companies going into liquidation and receivership . (JIREH Huka ltd march 2010 )
Just bringing this to your attention .
Much of New Zealand corruption is based on the lack of due diligence and ignorance . we are looking into the Auckland film studios at the moment and give this as an example.
Mayor Bob Harvey was deputy chair of the film commission knew of the govt grants which were coming out . He got council to invest some 7 million in fruit packing sheds . (Is film a core business of council? And why are they into film when they are looking at privatizing water? )
Consultants brought in to ” advise ” the council set up a company. The council eventually became minority share holder in this company ( later called Auckland film studios ) . the majority shareholder was Tony Tay trust Limited which later sold to a new company Tony Tay film Limited of which Tony Tay Trust Ltd was the majority shareholder and REHOBOTH ENTERTAINMENT (NZ) LIMITED was the minority shareholder and whose director, Kieran Fitzsimmons was the onsite manager of the complex and who is also general manager of the Tony Tay Group.
The original minute from council stated “That the Council agrees to sell all the land situated at 40 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson being all the land comprised in Certificates of Title 363/45, 360/233,261/10, 819/28, 820/275, 1128/265, 1126/181 and 126A/59 (North Auckland Registry), and being the land and buildings currently comprising the Henderson Valley Studios to the proposed joint-venture company (currently referred to as Studio Company) subject to a minimum of $6 million private cash equity being invested in the proposed joint-venture company and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise approval of these private investors.”
The two properties were transferred into the company (which was set up by the councils consultants who were acting in a less than transparent manner) as the councils shareholding, the properties were grouped into two titles.
We have not gone to the expense of checking to see how the historic titles and current titles relate to each other or if land was” Lost” in this transaction . What is also strange is that on the land transfer files both the hickory property and the 40 Henderson valley road property are shown as 40 Henderson valley road but there is no rates valuation for this address.
With the merging of councils the public asset has been transferred to Auckland city . The Auckland film This coincides with the time that Tony Tay film has been put into receivership by its shareholder Rehoboth claiming that it is owed 1.4 mil .
While it is odd that a shareholder should lend money to the company and then place the company into receivership to get the loan back , It is also odd to look at the figures involved and see such massive discrepancies. This has to be questioned when public money is at risk and the share holder and the company are as intrinsically entwined as Mr Kieran Fitzsimmons is with the Tony Tay group.
According to official council records ( page 95) the council values the complex in its entirety at about 10.975 Million and shows a loss of several million over the past few years.
The rates valuation for the property is still shown as is 13 mil. And this is for only part of the property other parts are shown as 10-14 Hickory ave but we have been unable to find a rating for the larger part of the property being 40 Henderson valley road.
The Receivers First Report identify Tony Tay film assets as being in excess of 10 million . The only investment this company has is the 55.6% shareholding of the Auckland film studio which is now valued according to council as 10.975 Million .
Somehow my computer has spat the dummy trying to work out these sums and no rational person could possibly accept that a 55.6% shareholding of an asset worth 10.975 Million can equal $10,140,300
The only conclusion we can come to is that, while the public have suffered a loss in their investment the majority shareholders are being creative in clawing back as much as they can.
We doubt if council will do an in-depth investigation into this as they are not big on due diligence. After all they can just ask the multitude to dig a bit deeper in their pockets and extract a few more rates dollars to cover the short fall.
We predict that What will happen is that more public money will be poured into this venture we the rate payers will lose while the private investors who have been involved in the day by day operation of the facility look at maximising profit and minimising risk. And this wont be considered corrupt at all basically because there is not a single person who suffers a loss ( we all do ) there is no complainant and no one will be prepared to look at the more shady aspects of this receivership.
Further related blogs Baptist connection with movie industry
Official Information act request Auckland film studios and the reply in